[*Scotty*]

Here is my hypothesis about what may be happening to the CD when we cryofry it, make of it what you will. I think the cryo process changes the reflectivity of the pits and lands on the CD. As a result the transport reads them differently. I prefer the sound of cryo treated CDs to non-treated CDs. That being said, I prefer the sound of CDs cloned to a Black Memorex CD-R over the original whether it was cryoed or not. Once again, if the information is the same on the CD-R as it is on the original CD, then something is occurring during the reading of the disc to affect the sound.  Moving along a continuum, I prefer the sound of a CD ripped to WAV file and played back via computer to any form of CD or CD-R playback.
Bits is bits???
Scotty

[rollo]

Indeed, that would be most interesting. Again, the result of comparing the error reports must be withheld until all of the listening reports have been collected. We have to be patient. It will be very interesting to see how the listening evaluations compare to the computer's assessment.

----

Rollo,

The thing about perception is that our brains are actively involved in the process. Ears are quite passive, but our brains are creative. In fact, in a very real sense (pun intended), our perceptions are our creations. What we know about what we are perceiving influences how we perceive it. It's a young and fascinating field of study. Science may be applied at many different levels. Something which rests so heavily on perception as our audio hobby cannot be properly understood without the application neurology and psychology.

(please don't read anything into the above)

       Exactly Kevin. What else matters than ones perception. Hopefuly we all can engage in an fact finding conversation. I agree 100% that neurology and psychology plays a role. However does it really matter ? That is the question of the day.
       I'm game to try both CDs. Are we just going to listen or measure or both ? If we measure what would we measure ? Can we actually measure what makes it sound different or not ? Kevin these questions are not directed at you they are general in nature.
       For whatever reason the proof for me is in listening to the ??? Not measuring it. This should be fun lets keep it that way guys.



charles

       

[brj]

Rip them to WAV and do a CRC compare on the files. Would be more effective.

I would expect the CRC to match regardless when ripping a new CD as most modern rippers will make multiple passes if the first one doesn't come back clean, and then compare to the Accurate Rip database to make sure.  Thus my suggestion to compare the actual error reports or logs when ripping the same CD pre and post cryo.  That may show you how easily the ripper was able to extract the files.

(Though I'm saying this going from memory regarding the logs that the CD Paranoia based XLD generates when I rip my CDs.  There is a lot of detail in those logs, but these days I tend to just skip to the end and look for the "all tracks ripped successfully" statement, so I'm a little hazy on exactly how useful those details might be.)

[kevin360]

Moving along a continuum, I prefer the sound of a CD ripped to WAV file and played back via computer to any form of CD or CD-R playback.
Bits is bits???
Scotty

For whatever reason, I prefer the same. In my case, the alternative to playing CDs is a Bryston BDP-1 which reads data (predominantly in the form of .wav) from a Toshiba Canvio USB 3.0 drive and feeds a stream to an ARC DAC7 via its AES/EBU output. It's apples to oranges compared to listening to CDs played and converted to analog by the Marantz universal player, but I like it better for more than simple convenience - to me, it sounds better. There a number of possible explanations - could simply be a result of using a better DAC in the former scenario, but I cannot say for sure.

I respect your opinions, but I retain my skepticism regarding cryo treated CDs. Perhaps, experience will alter my view. I am looking forward to finding out.

[JerryLove]

I would expect the CRC to match regardless when ripping a new CD as most modern rippers will make multiple passes if the first one doesn't come back clean, and then compare to the Accurate Rip database to make sure.  Thus my suggestion to compare the actual error reports or logs when ripping the same CD pre and post cryo.  That may show you how easily the ripper was able to extract the files.

Audio CD transports also use multi-sampling and have for some time.

But yes, a peek at error rates would tell you if there was some significant impact on readability.

Since we are entirely in the digital domain here: changes should be simple to quantify.

[dBe]

Sounds like fun. I'd like to participate

You got it.  We'll get you inline for both auditions.   

[dBe]

          When we audition a component or tweak in our familiar system are we listening to its affect or how it was designed ? In our hobby the sound is the only factor to be considered. The final product of all the science, research and implementation of such.
       If one hears a difference wether perceived or or actual it only matters to the eye of the beholder. Our ears as flawed as they are the only true avenue for evaluating any tweak. I'll leave the science to the engineers and the listening to me.

I think you hit on something here, Charles.  Most people can hear, but how many actually listen?  Those are two entirelt different aspects of the aural experience.

Dave

[dBe]

This is precisely what I like about this whole enterprise. It will demonstrate something. We who participate have the opportunity to make a blind evaluation. I am skeptical, but not closed minded. I care not how I align with the other participants, at least, not beyond simple curiosity. I do look forward to the exercise and I'll include my daughter (she has quite developed 'ears'). For obvious reasons, we'll all have to wait a while for the results - at least, I would recommend against posting a running tally of any sort during the acquisition of the data.

The original post title included the term, 'decorum'. Let's have fun with this. Let's not be petty about it. We can argue about the interpretation of the data, but let's do it in a civil manner - via rational discussion. Until then, let's concentrate on devising experiments that aren't completely untenable. That should prove quite a challenge.

Aha!  Getting the family involved.  Good on you! 

No worries about posting the results.  Doing anything of the sort publicly would skew the results.  I'll be cc-ing Control with the reults as they come in as an accountability check though.

Dave

[dBe]

I haven't had a spinner in my system for several years, but an interesting adjunct to this experiment might be to take a CD, rip it and save the report, then cryo it and repeat the rip.  See of the error report or confidence rating changes.  No (fallible) human perception involved...

That will check to see if errors are part of the results, but the entire exercise is about the medium, not the data.  Remember we are looking at the optics of the disc not necessarily the data on that disc.

One of the sources of jitter has been postulated to be light scatter in the lexan and from the aluminized layer of the disc.  Me?  I have no idea.

Dave

[dBe]

Tommy Deluxe Edition, The Who SACD.

Since there are absolutely *no errors* in reading as-is; I can't wait to hear how better-than-perfect reading of pits and lands will sound.

The choice of a CD was made so that more people could participate.  It would be interesting to hear if cryo makes a difference on an SACD.

Send me a PM, please.

Dave

[dBe]

I'll be in for the CD.
It doesn't matter to me which way the results go.

Cool!  We'll get you on the list.

Dave

[dBe]

Here is my hypothesis about what may be happening to the CD when we cryofry it, make of it what you will. I think the cryo process changes the reflectivity of the pits and lands on the CD. As a result the transport reads them differently. I prefer the sound of cryo treated CDs to non-treated CDs. That being said, I prefer the sound of CDs cloned to a Black Memorex CD-R over the original whether it was cryoed or not. Once again, if the information is the same on the CD-R as it is on the original CD, then something is occurring during the reading of the disc to affect the sound.  Moving along a continuum, I prefer the sound of a CD ripped to WAV file and played back via computer to any form of CD or CD-R playback.
Bits is bits???
Scotty

Hmmmmmmm.  I have a whole stack of Memorex black CD's here.  Paul McGowan was right about that one.

.wav definitely sounds better than .aiff to me too, but the lack of metadata bugs me being a MacMini guy for the "system".  I use a PC in the office, but the playback system is pretty lo-fi there.

"snick" (the sound of pulling the pin on a controversy grenade).................  BOOM!

Have you done the demag thing on your CD's

Dave

[dBe]

Audio CD transports also use multi-sampling and have for some time.

But yes, a peek at error rates would tell you if there was some significant impact on readability.

Since we are entirely in the digital domain here: changes should be simple to quantify.

I'll make sure that a data read on the discs.  We'll get someone in the loop to do so.  Wanna play?   

Dave

[mikeeastman]

Dave, I would like to get in on this experiment, both cd and cables.

 Thanks, Mike

[dBe]

Dave, I would like to get in on this experiment, both cd and cables.

 Thanks, Mike

You're in, Mike.  Thanks.
 
 

Dave

[Rclark]

Ok, Dave, I was wracking my brain trying to think of an appropriate CD. How about some Pink Floyd? I never heard Division Bell.

[dBe]

Ok, Dave, I was wracking my brain trying to think of an appropriate CD. How about some Pink Floyd? I never heard Division Bell.

Me, too.  I'll get them coming if I can't find them here.

Dave

[Rclark]

I didn't understand that 

[dBe]

I didn't understand that 

OK.

I haven't heard that selection in a long time.  I'll get two copies either locally (if I can) or order them in.  I'll do the cryo thing, send them to John and we'll get this grand experiment happening.

Dave

[SoCalWJS]

Ok, Dave, I was wracking my brain trying to think of an appropriate CD. How about some Pink Floyd? I never heard Division Bell.

Hey! Good stuff!

I've got the old version - any chance it could be the "Discovery" version? I've been meaning to give that one a try.